Harvard University has filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s decision to freeze more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts benefitting Harvard. The funding freeze came after Harvard refused a list of demands aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at the University, curbing protests, and targeting antisemitism on campus. Harvard argues the funding freeze violates the law and is an improper attempt by the Administration to interfere with the governance of the University.
By way of background, on April 11, 2025, the Trump Administration sent a letter to Harvard demanding Harvard change a variety of policies or risk losing its federal funding. The Administration demanded leadership changes, revisions to Harvard’s admissions policies, auditing views of diversity on campus, and ending certain “DEI-related” student clubs. The Administration also demanded that Harvard screen international students for anyone “hostile to the American values” and to impose tougher discipline on campus protestors. Harvard’s President immediately stated that Harvard would not comply with the Administration’s demands. Within hours, the Trump Administration froze Harvard’s federal funding and contracts. The Administration has since suggested that the letter was a working draft and was sent to Harvard in error, yet it has not lifted the funding freeze.
The Trump Administration has also announced that it is considering actions to revoke the tax-exempt status of Harvard. President Trump wrote on social media platforms that “perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax-Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness? Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!” Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the President, and other executive branch employees, are prohibited from either directly or indirectly requesting that the IRS investigate or audit specific targets. The IRS has declined to comment whether it is reviewing Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
The recently filed lawsuit alleges that the Administration’s actions violate Harvard’s First Amendment rights to academic freedom. The lawsuit alleges that the government’s threats to withhold funding would render Harvard unable to exercise its First Amendment rights related to faculty hiring, academic programs, student admissions, and other core academic matters “without fear that the decisions will run afoul of government censors’ views on acceptable levels of ideological or viewpoint diversity on campus.”
Harvard also alleges that the Administration violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because the Administration did not satisfy the required procedures in Title VI required before revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns. The lawsuit argues that the Administration’s failure to follow those procedures was arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional.
Harvard argues that the freeze in federal funding would jeopardize vital scientific research, including studies related to child cancer survivors, predicting the spread of infectious diseases, and helping wounded veterans. The Trump Administration has justified the freeze by arguing that Harvard did not do enough to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestine protests last year, and that Harvard has allowed rampant antisemitism on campus.
After the lawsuit was filed, hundreds of higher education leaders signed a joint statement condemning the “the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” The statement was organized by the American Association of Colleges and Universities and signed by presidents and administrators at colleges across the country.
The case is President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-11048 (D. Mass.).
What It Means
- This is the first major legal challenge to the Trump Administration’s attempts to force policy changes at colleges and universities by withholding federal funding. The court’s ruling in this case could have sweeping implications for similar conflicts between the Administration and higher education institutions.
What We Are Watching:
- The Administration has indicated a willingness to negotiate with Harvard. So far, Harvard has shown no interest in further negotiations and seems intent on litigating the dispute.
- The letter signed by higher education leaders across the country is one of the first demonstrations of unity amongst higher education institutions. The question is whether institutions will stay unified if and when investigations and sanctions start affecting them individually.
- Will the Trump Administration follow through on its threat to influence the IRS to withdraw tax-exempt status from universities that refuse to meet demands from the Administration? Such an escalation would have significant—and in some cases catastrophic—financial impacts on higher education institutions.
